Er, no! If you're not overly fond of timed exclusives, retail exclusives, price gouging, skewed DLC's and all the rest of it, you absolutely should let BioWare and EA know how you feel.
There is no problem with letting them know how you feel about something like this, but there is a line when giving feedback too for if you go too far over you get easily dismissed.
The only thing that would make me angry is if this was some sort of story related content. I don't really care for weapons or clothing dlc. But I hope it isn't something like a Morrigan story dlc. That would ****** me off 
It's probably gonna be story DLC. I doubt MS would shell out bucks for "horse armor".
When they use this kind of DLC publishing plan on a game that offers perhaps 10 hours of entertainment and very little replay value, it tends to tick me off a bit.
But if DAI has even quarter the content than what Skyrim and its ilk offer, most of us probably won't even get to finish the main game before the limitation is lifted on other platforms.
Let's hope they don't push it too far back though, or they may end up shooting themselves in the leg. Hardcore fans will bear the wait and be back no matter what, but it'll be more difficult to lure the casual ones if something else has grabbed their attention already.
Essentially, I'm suggesting that there has never been the equity displayed by Bioware that some fans assume there to be. For similar value, my Xbox copy of Skyrim isn't as pretty as the PC rendition, nor does it have modding capabilities. Historically-speaking, Bioware has more than a few PC releases as well, which have come onto the market far after their console brethren (Ex: Jade Empire).
And on top of that, the very concept of console exclusives is everything which people seem to hate about timed dlc taken to the extreme. I've said this before in other threads, but I'd rather deal with timed exclusive dlc than deal with never getting to play certain games as a result of console exclusivity. As a consumer, that hurts me far more.
There is no problem with letting them know how you feel about something like this, but there is a line when giving feedback too for if you go too far over you get easily dismissed.
And on top of that, the very concept of console exclusives is everything which people seem to hate about timed dlc taken to the extreme. I've said this before in other threads, but I'd rather deal with timed exclusive dlc than deal with never getting to play certain games as a result of console exclusivity. As a consumer, that hurts me far more.
Is there something wrong with wanting all consoles you release a game on to be treated equally? Or at least as equally as technology allows?
Honestly - sadly - I think that the concerns of my fellow forum sadsacks will be dismissed regardless of how respectfully they are expressed. Perhaps that's part of the problem?
Nothing will change for Inquisition because its too late now for I am pretty sure contracts would be signed and commitments established, but it could be something considered for the next game. Of course since Sony and Ubisoft have been doing it for years I can't see the practice stopping either.
Is there something wrong with wanting all consoles you release a game on to be treated equally? Or at least as equally as technology allows?
Beyond the fact that theargument results in multiple double standards?
I'd point out, for example, that in lieu of Microsoft's timed exclusivity, gaming purchases heavily favor the PC audience over the console audience, in terms of capabilities. But you haven't suggested that PC players shouldn't have access to these extra features if we want true equality. Nor have you suggested either that console players should pay a reduced price or that PC players should pay more as a result. But there's nothing inherently wrong with this disparity?
In a similar vein, as a consumer, this argument still doesn't hold water, given the consequences of console exclusivity. As I said in the other thread, you suffer more from not being able to play Bloodborne, Halo 5, and Super Smash Bros. ever than you do from a temporary pause for this dlc. This isn't me saying "I like timed exclusivity". This is me saying "timed exclusivity sucks, but other things suck infinitely more".
Microsoft has a pretty good relationship with EA and they do everything to promote Xbone.
Is there something wrong with wanting all consoles you release a game on to be treated equally? Or at least as equally as technology allows?
Some companies could pay money and get preferential treatment for their consoles.
Beyond the fact that theargument results in multiple double standards?
I'd point out, for example, that in lieu of Microsoft's timed exclusivity, gaming purchases heavily favor the PC audience over the console audience, in terms of capabilities. But you haven't suggested that PC players shouldn't have access to these extra features if we want true equality. Nor have you suggested either that console players should pay a reduced price or that PC players should pay more as a result. But there's nothing inherently wrong with this disparity?
So, wait, because someone purchased a more expensive platform, they deserve to pay more for games too, or be restricted/denied content, in the name of "fairness"?
I don't want to start a console war, but...really?
And in this particular case, fairness doesn't even enter into it. For one thing, PS3 & PS4 (as well as 360) players are getting screwed too. Microsoft vbasically wrote EA a check to sit on content they produced so they can claim "exclusivity"
In a similar vein, as a consumer, this argument still doesn't hold water, given the consequences of console exclusivity. As I said in the other thread, you suffer more from not being able to play Bloodborne, Halo 5, and Super Smash Bros. ever than you do from a temporary pause for this dlc. This isn't me saying "I like timed exclusivity". This is me saying "timed exclusivity sucks, but other things suck infinitely more".
I'd say it sucks less to be told "sorry, we're not providing this game on your platform, (which I've experienced before) than to be told "Yeah we're providing content for all you all, but you have to get in the back of the line because someone paid me to do that to you."
Don't worry, OP. It'll probably be just some weapon pack, multiplayer dlc or horse armor dlc so you ain't going to be losing much.
So, wait, because someone purchased a more expensive platform, they deserve to pay more for games too, or be restricted/denied content, in the name of "fairness"?
I don't want to start a console war, but...really?
And in this particular case, fairness doesn't even enter into it. For one thing, PS3 & PS4 (as well as 360) players are getting screwed too. Microsoft vbasically wrote EA a check to sit on content they produced so they can claim "exclusivity"
I'd say it sucks less to be told "sorry, we're not providing this game on your platform, (which I've experienced before) than to be told "Yeah we're providing content for all you all, but you have to get in the back of the line because someone paid me to do that to you."
Does that mean Sony owed me a plane ticket to go see Amazing Spider Man 2 in the United Kingdom because it opened two weeks earlier there then in North America? Marketing and other development told them this is the better business decision, I might not be a fan of this practice but these companies are all designed to make a profit otherwise nobody would make games.
So, wait, because someone purchased a more expensive platform, they deserve to pay more for games too, or be restricted/denied content, in the name of "fairness"?
I don't want to start a console war, but...really?
But you have a problem with a practice that favors one specific console that happens to not be the one you chose? How is higher end graphics for the PC, isometric view for DA:O (as an example) and modding capabilities (as per Skyrim) any different than the timed exclusivity Microsoft currently has? Saying "it's greed" isn't a counter-argument. Console exclusivity is itself largely motivated by greed.
It would be one thing if you were against all these practices, but here you're cherry-picking which ones crossed the proverbial line, with no clear logic to it.
And in this particular case, fairness doesn't even enter into it. For one thing, PS3 & PS4 (as well as 360) players are getting screwed too. Microsoft vbasically wrote EA a check to sit on content they produced so they can claim "exclusivity"
My point was that we are not all being treated equally as customers, from start to finish. PC release not being identical to the console release being a prime example. That applies to the 360 players as well.
This isn't about Console vs. PC Wars, but that in general as consumers we are not treated equally across the board.
I'd say it sucks less to be told "sorry, we're not providing this game on your platform, (which I've experienced before) than to be told "Yeah we're providing content for all you all, but you have to get in the back of the line because someone paid me to do that to you."
So you're okay with console exclusivity because you're used to it? I'm not sure that experience in this case is the best defense, particularly since you know full well that console exclusivity affects you more as a consumer. You'd rather never be able play certain games at all rather than wait a bit longer to access some small piece of dlc?
In general as consumers we are not treated equally across the board.
True, though its fair to say that BioWares treatment of some sections of its fanbase is less equal than it is for others. Take me for example: I'm a UK based gamer who found himself unable to purchase a collectors edition for PC because its not being made available here for reasons that have yet to be explained to me. And you know what? Should I have been able to actually purchase the damn thing I would have had to pony up significantly more than someone living in North America. Then to compound matters news of this wonderful arrangement with Microsoft breaks! Not the biggest of deals I know, but things are fast approaching the point where I feel that BioWare are taking the ****. Am I wrong?
True, though its fair to say that the treatment of some is less equal than it is for others. Take me for example: I'm a UK based gamer who found himself unable to purchase a collectors edition for PC because its not being made available here for reasons that have yet to be explained to me. And you know what? Should I have been able to actually purchase the damn thing I would have had to pay significantly more than someone living in North America. And to compound matters, news of this wonderful arrangement with Microsoft breaks! Not the biggest of deals I know, but things are fast approaching the point where I feel that BioWare are taking the ****. Am I wrong?
Well, I think your position is a bit easier to defend. You're acknowledging many of these practices as being problematic. I don't really see anything wrong with being against timed exclusivity, provided that it's acknowledged that many practices employed by companies are inherently unfair.
Here's another fun example: Legend of Korra Season 3 has just been removed from the air. Nickelodeon has now decided that they're going to be streaming all the episodes on their website instead, unfortunately the content is region-locked, preventing many fans outside of North America who are heavily invested in the series from watching the show, without going through some hurdles.
So it is true that if you frustrate a consumer to a great enough extent, they will simply cease to become a customer.
Well, I think your position is a bit easier to defend. You're acknowledging many of these practices as being problematic. I don't really see anything wrong with being against timed exclusivity, provided that it's acknowledged that many practices employed by companies are inherently unfair.
Here's another fun example: Legend of Korra Season 3 has just been removed from the air. Nickelodeon has now decided that they're going to be streaming all the episodes on their website instead, unfortunately the content is region-locked, preventing many fans outside of North America who are heavily invested in the series from watching the show, without going through some hurdles.
So it is true that if you frustrate a consumer to a great enough extent, they will simply cease to become a customer.
There are however proxy sites to bypass that specific type of region lock.
There are however proxy sites to bypass that specific type of region lock.
Also there are *other ways* to get them on your PC its not that hard
Also there are *other ways* to get them on your PC its not that hard
I would never illegally download such shows to my PC even if I consider such regional restrictions unfair. I will however use a bypass via proxy to watch a show the same time as the people in the US on official channels/websites. In the case of games and such I would also never illegally download or pirate a game as the creators deserve to be paid if I chose to play their game so I would rather not buy the product and not play it if I consider their actions cross the line where I cannot in good conscience support their policies at all. If it offends me only slightly I will hold off buying it till its on sale instead and if offends me too much I will just not buy or play at all.
Like in this case with the timed exclusivity DLC through a corporate bribe policy which as I have stated I consider unfair and a betrayal of their long time fans akin to treating one group of fans with preferential treatment and the others treated as second class and not equal despite both groups paying same price for their product and having the same devotion over the years supporting Bioware...in this case if turned out to be all DLC timed I would of boycotted the game until such time as the life cycle of the entire product had ended with no more DLC coming out before I even considered buying it and even then would of waited till on a large sale/discount but as it sounds like might just be first DLC I will hold off buying until the policy ends and no more DLC are timed exclusives.
If Bioware had done or did do much more to offend me in it's policies or the way it treats it's fans and customers I might well just never support them again which applies to any company or business but so far it has not reached that stage yet in the case of Bioware, if it ever does I will just not buy or play their products but would never pirate them either because as I said they spent years making it and investing a lot of money to create it so they deserve to be paid if I plan to obtain, use and play it. I however am quite content to bypass regional restrictions on TV episodes, not to download or make copies but to watch the show one time, the same time as everyone else when it first airs and even then only it the official channel/websites. I would not feel I am stepping over the line in that situation though others may disagree.
Guest_fanofthecullen_*
Don't worry people, Xbox has always deluded itself into thinking timed DLC makes it's games sell more, and they've been wrong every time.
It is NOT Biowares fault. Xbox probably offered millions that they sorely needed.
See gaming companies can't really do this anymore. The consumer has way too much power nowadays. You can't be a gaming company, make a huge title 'xbox' or 'ps' exclusive and expect people to buy your console based off that anymore. The consumers COMPLAIN, and you get BAD publicity, not good publicity. Remember all the DRM stuff? They had to spend millions of dollars fixing that mess, and their sales have suffered for it. Sony isn't perfect either, because a lot of games that used to be playstation exclusive have now become both consoles because developers know limiting themselves to half the market never works.
Want to stop this? Don't buy an Xbone. You don't even need to buy a playstation instead, just don't buy their console. Spend that month spamming complaints.
I joined the PC race a little over a year ago...it's amazing how different it is, because they know we will f*** them over if they mess with us using price/exclusives/DLC. The internet is a dangerous place. Hence why I bought Origins ultimate edition for 10 bucks.
So you're okay with console exclusivity because you're used to it? I'm not sure that experience in this case is the best defense, particularly since you know full well that console exclusivity affects you more as a consumer. You'd rather never be able play certain games at all rather than wait a bit longer to access some small piece of dlc?
Yes, actually. I'd rather not be able to play certain games at all than to have exclusive content. Timed or otherwise. At least then I know where I stand with the publisher. "Yes" or "No". Not "Yes, but you're less important that that guy over there".
Yes, consumers are not treated fairly across the board. I do not deny that. But deals like this only makes the problem worse.
Yes, actually. I'd rather not be able to play certain games at all than to have exclusive content. Timed or otherwise. At least then I know where I stand with the publisher. "Yes" or "No". Not "Yes, but you're less important that that guy over there".
Really? Then I'd say you're among the few. Someone brought up the Amazing Spider-Man 2 as an example. Hell, let's use an extremely popular movie, for the hell of it! Avengers wasn't released in the U.S. until about a week after their European counter-parts. And this happens with quite a few movies. If we took your policy at face value, we'd have everyone insisting "Nope, we want a release date along side the Europeans, or we don't want it at all!". But fat chance of that happening.
As I said before, if your reasoning results substantially worse consequences than a number of other practices, then it's probably not a good motto to live by, especially since I can draw from about a million different examples where you (or a huge majority) likely wouldn't approve of the scenario you suddenly find yourself in, hence the Avengers example.
Yes, consumers are not treated fairly across the board. I do not deny that. But deals like this only makes the problem worse.
And yet when I presented you with an example of how to alleviate console-PC disparity, you expressed outrage.
You didn't say "hey, you're right, we should get rid of higher end graphics, modding capabilities, etc, right along with timed exclusivity" so everyone can stand on equal footing. You didn't say you were willing to pay more for your purchase or suggest that console gamers pay less. Instead, you attempted to defend the status quo, which is extremely hypocritical.
We all know how it will end .....
Really? Then I'd say you're among the few. Someone brought up the Amazing Spider-Man 2 as an example. Hell, let's use an extremely popular movie, for the hell of it! Avengers wasn't released in the U.S. until about a week after their European counter-parts. And this happens with quite a few movies. If we took your policy at face value, we'd have everyone insisting "Nope, we want a release date along side the Europeans, or we don't want it at all!". But fat chance of that happening.
As I said before, if your reasoning results substantially worse consequences than a number of other practices, then it's probably not a good motto to live by, especially since I can draw from about a million different examples where you (or a huge majority) likely wouldn't approve of the scenario you suddenly find yourself in, hence the Avengers example.
While I don't see why markets can't release movies closer to the same time, world-wide, I don't see it as quite the same thing.
For one thing, I don't have to spend hundreds of dollars on equipment to see a movie in a theater (though given theater prices these days, that may not be far off 
) only to be told "Sorry, you bought the wrong equipment. Come back in a couple of months if you want to see the movie"
And yet when I presented you with an example of how to alleviate console-PC disparity, you expressed outrage.
You didn't say "hey, you're right, we should get rid of higher end graphics, modding capabilities, etc, right along with timed exclusivity" so everyone can stand on equal footing. You didn't say you were willing to pay more for your purchase or suggest that console gamers pay less. Instead, you attempted to defend the status quo, which is extremely hypocritical.
Because the example you cited was not aimed at trying to make exclusive content available to all, but to punish one platform for getting too much stuff.
Talk to me about being able to put mods on XBox Skyrim and you'll find I'm all for it.
Want is this DLC anyway? I'm going to be play on the One and still have no idea what it is.
While I don't see why markets can't release movies closer to the same time, world-wide, I don't see it as quite the same thing.
For one thing, I don't have to spend hundreds of dollars on equipment to see a movie in a theater (though given theater prices these days, that may not be far off
I think they are a good comparison for here is my logic when I posted about The Amazing Spider-Man 2.
The United Kingdom got a two week exclusivity for watching the movie ahead of North America, now if I wanted to see the movie before it was released in North America I would have to spend a couple hundred dollars on a plane ticket and possibly accommodations or I can wait until the exclusivity expires and watch it in North America.
Now lets switch it to Microsoft and Dragon Age.
Microsoft has an unknown length of exclusivity for Dragon Age Inquisition ahead of Sony, now if I want to play the DLC before its released on Sony's PS4 I would have to spend a couple hundred dollars on buying another console or I can wait until the exclusivity expires and buy it on the PS4.
Retour en haut
